Interdependence, Differential Rewarding, and Productivity

Miller, L. Keith; Hamblin, Robert L.

doi:10.2307/2089914

Cited by 154 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current consensus regarding reward structures suggests that competitive structures should be used when people are working independently, whereas cooperative reward structures should be used when people are working interdependently (Deutsch, 1949;Miller & Hamblin, 1963;Rosenbaum et al, 1980;Stanne et al, 1999;Wageman, 1995). Because all of the research participants in this study were working within means-interdependent teams, this study does not speak to how one should design reward structures when people are working alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This lack of change resulted in a failure of teambased work to result in the supposed benefits (Hackman, 1998). Indeed, the consensus in the scientific literature regarding competitive and collaborative rewards structures is quite clear in its sup-port for competitive allocations when people are working independently, but collaborative allocations when people are interdependent (Deutsch, 1949;Miller & Hamblin, 1963;Rosenbaum et al, 1980;Stanne, Johnson, & Johnson, 1999;Wageman, 1995). The general logic underlying this prescription is that collaborative reward allocations promote trust, cohesiveness, and mutually supportive behavior among team members, which in turn promote performance, and this general theme is reiterated in almost all organizational behavior textbooks (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.

Beersma¹,

Hollenbeck²,

Humphrey³

et al. 2003

Academy of Management Journal

369

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined whether the relationship between reward structure and team performance is contingent upon task dimension, team composition, and individual performance level. Seventy-five four-person teams engaged in a simulated interactive task in which reward structure was manipulated. A competitive structure enhanced one task dimension, speed, whereas a cooperative structure enhanced accuracy. Teams with extroverted and agreeable members performed better under the cooperative structure, whereas teams low on these orientations performed better under the competitive structure. Finally, reward structure had more impact on team members with low performance.The degree to which organizations should emphasize cooperation or competition among the members of work teams is an age-old controversy. Competitive systems embody equity norms and emphasize performance differences among team members, typically rewarding individuals with high performance and/or imposing sanctions on those with low performance. Therefore, some believe that competition promotes efficiency and innovation because it stimulates individuals to outperform each other by working faster, or "smarter," or cheaper, and the belief is that this activity will serve the long-term needs of their organization. Others believe that intrateam competition is destructive. In competing, individuals or subgroups place their own goals above those of the larger organization, and the gains achieved by one are often obtained at the expense of another. For this reason, some argue that the needs of the larger organization are better met by employing cooperative reward structures. Cooperative systems embody equality norms and emphasize group accomplishments. They emphasize minimizing distinctions among group members (that is, distinctions based on performance) because these distinctions may impede teamwork, information sharing, and helping.The inherent tension between competitive and cooperative reward structures has become particularly salient in contemporary organizations because many of these organizations are trying to make the transition from individual-based structures to team-based structures (Allred, Snow, & Miles, 1996). Some organizations that have transitioned into team-based structures over the last several years have left their reward structures unchanged. This lack of change resulted in a failure of teambased work to result in the supposed benefits (Hackman, 1998). Indeed, the consensus in the scientific literature regarding competitive and collaborative rewards structures is quite clear in its sup-

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.

Beersma¹,

Hollenbeck²,

Humphrey³

et al. 2003

Academy of Management Journal

369

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, individuals high in the personality trait need for achievement appear to be particularly motivated by competition (Epstein & Harackiewicz, 1992;Tauer & Harackiewicz, 1999). Also, cooperation appears to benefit performance under conditions of high task interdependence, whereas competition may be better under low interdependence (Miller & Hamblin, 1963).…”

Section: Consequences Of Rivalrymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychology of Rivalry: A Relationally Dependent Analysis of Competition

Kilduff

Elfenbein

Staw

2010

AMJ

447

430

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the psychological phenomenon of rivalry, and propose a view of competition as inherently relational, thus extending the literatures on competition between individuals, groups, and firms. Specifically, we argue that the relationships between competitors -as captured by their proximity, relative attributes and prior competitive interactions -can influence the subjective intensity of rivalry between them, which in turn can affect their competitive behavior. Initial tests of these ideas within NCAA basketball indicate that (1) dyadic relationships between teams are highly influential in determining perceptions of rivalry (2) similarity between teams and their histories of prior interactions are systematically predictive of rivalry and (3) rivalry may affect the motivation and performance of team members. These findings suggest significant implications for both the management of employees and the competitive strategies taken by organizations. Airways after the latter admitted to having launched a "dirty tricks" campaign against its rival, which included calling Virgin's customers and lying to them about flight cancellations in addition to circulating rumors that Virgin CEO Richard Branson was infected with HIV (Branson, 1998). In a slightly less scandalous example, Boston Scientific recently overpaid for its acquisition of Guidant -later referred to as "arguably the second-worst" acquisition ever -in large part because it was bidding against rival Johnson & Johnson (Malhotra, Ku, & Murnighan, 2008;Tully, 2006).It is evident from these examples that rivalry can be a powerful psychological phenomenon with substantial behavioral consequences. To date, however, the psychology of rivalry has received little attention from researchers, which is symptomatic of a broader lack of study on the relationships between competitors. We attempt to fill this gap by presenting a theory of rivalry as a subjective relationship between competitors, and by investigating its antecedents and consequences. In doing so, we draw upon the literatures on competition between individuals, groups, and organizations. After outlining our theoretical model, we conduct a first-test of our hypotheses within a setting known to be rife with rivalry: NCAA basketball. BACKGROUND AND THEORY DEVELOPMENT

show abstract

“…However, Slavin (1977) held that over longer periods, growth of social pressures favoring performance in cooperative groups makes cooperation more effective. A similar conclusion was reached by Miller and Hamblin (1963), who postulated that cooperative reward structures were most effective for interdependent (cooperative) task structures but least effective for independent tasks.…”

supporting

confidence: 68%

The effect of different instructional groupings on student achievement and attitudes from a computer-based interactive videodisk biology unit

Alonso¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of different instructional groupings on student achievement and attitudes from a computer-based interactive videodisk biology unit" (1996). We have read this dissertation and recommend that it be approved. Kingsley BanyaBarry re -er The purpose of this research study was to determine the effect of two different instructional groupings (cooperative and traditional whole-class) on student achievement and attitudes using a computer-based interactive videodisc biology unit.The subjects were 64 high school biology students assigned to two heterogeneous experimental groups, randomly selected from two preassigned summer school biology classes, one honors, the other regular.A two-group, posttest-only, control group experimental research design was utilized. Achievement at three cognitive levels and attitudes towards science laserdisc instruction were measured at the conclusion of the study.

show abstract

Interdependence, Differential Rewarding, and Productivity

Cited by 154 publications

References 0 publications

Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.

Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.

The Psychology of Rivalry: A Relationally Dependent Analysis of Competition

The effect of different instructional groupings on student achievement and attitudes from a computer-based interactive videodisk biology unit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About